Author: TSA Press

States
are
poised
to
receive $42.5
billion
in
broadband
grants thanks
to
the
2021
infrastructure
bill.
While
a
lot
of
this
money
will
be
going
to
the
usual
entrenched
monopoly
incumbents,
a
lot
of
it
is also going
to
a
growing
list
of
popular cooperatives,
municipalities,
and
city-owned
utilities to
expand
affordable
fiber.

This Broadband
Equity
Access
and
Deployment (BEAD)
program
is
going
to
help
bring
a
lot
of
competition
and
new
fiber
into
numerous
markets.
So,
as
per
obstructionist
party
tradition,
Republicans
are
trying
to
kill
or
undermine
it
at
every
possibility.

Republicans
voted
against
the
program,
but
then
immediately
turned
around
and took
credit
for
the
local
improvements
among
their
constituents.
They
worked
tirelessly
to
try
and
keep
this
money
from driving
competition
into
Comcast
and
AT&T
markets.
They’ve
also
launched
show
hearings
after
learning
that
the
BEAD
program
is
(gasp) trying
to
make
sure
this
new
broadband is
affordable
to
poor
people.

Then
there’s
Trump
FCC
pick
Brendan
Carr.
Carr,
you’ll
recall,
spends
all
of
his
time whining
about
TikTok (a
sector
he
doesn’t
regulate),
but
none
of
it
on
helping
telecom
consumers
(a
sector
he
actually
regulates).
And
when
he
can
focus
on
telecom,
it’s
generally
either
to
lobotomize
corporate
oversight,
or
do
some
favor
for
unpopular
companies
like
Comcast
and
AT&T.

Like
this
new
missive
in the
Wall
Street
Journal (paywall)
that
tries
to
claim
the
BEAD
program
is
a
“flop”
because
it
has
taken
some
time
to
implement
it:

“Kamala
Harris lamented
recently
that
“in
America,
it
takes
too
long
and
it
costs
too
much
to
build.”
She’s
right.
But
she
failed
to
mention
that
those
costly
delays
are
a
feature,
not
a
bug,
of
her
progressive
policies.”

What
Carr doesn’t say
is
that
a
primary
reason
it
has
taken
three
years
to
get
this
component
of
the
infrastructure
bill
off
the
ground was
a
direct
result
of
Carr’s
own
incompetence.
The
Trump
and
Ajit
Pai
FCC
(of
which
Carr
was
a
key
member) completely
mismanaged
the
FCC’s
$20.4
billion
Rural
Digital
Opportunity
Fund
(RDOF),
resulting
in
billions
of
dollars
in
fraud
and
various
delays.

The
Pai
FCC’s
mismanagement
of
RDOF
was so severe,
when
it
came
time
for
the
Biden
administration
to
put
an
agency
in
charge
of
the
BEAD
program, it
selected
the
NTIA
instead
of
the
FCC.
That’s
directly
on
Carr;
but
he
just
(whoops)
doesn’t
mention
that
bit.

Progress
has
been
slow
because
the
NTIA
has
been
trying
to
do
all
of
the
stuff
the
FCC
failed
to
do,
like properly
map
broadband
access to
ensure
the
money
is
spent
properly.
And
do
a
better
job
screening
applicants
to
make
sure
they
can
actually
deliver
the
broadband
networks
they
promise.

The
Carr
and
Pai
FCC
didn’t
bother
with
this
last
bit,
resulting
in
a
long
line
of
RDOF
applicants
(including
Musk’s
Starlink)
getting
billions
of
dollars
they
didn’t
deserve,
for
projects
they
couldn’t
build.
That
resulted
in
a
ton
of
defaulting
bidders,
and
it
has
taken
years
for
the
Biden
FCC
to clean
up
the
Trump
FCC’s
mess.
Worse,
some
of
the
communities
stuck
in
default
over
RDOF
bids
now can’t
qualify
for
BEAD
funds,
boxing
them
out
of
a
generational
broadband
funding
opportunity
due
to
Trump
FCC
incompetence.

Starlink
in
particular
was
poised
to
receive
nearly
a
billion
dollars
from
Trump
to
deliver
expensive,
satellite
access
to a
handful
of
airport
parking
lots
and
traffic
medians.
The
Biden
FCC
(correctly)
retracted
that
award,
stating
it
wasn’t
clear
that
the increasingly
congested
Starlink
network could
actually
deliver
consistently
promised
speeds.
They
also
said
Starlink
access
was
expensive,
instead
redirecting
these
funds
toward
more
“future
proof”
and
affordable
local
fiber
and
wireless
access.
I’ve criticized
the
Biden
FCC
plenty;
but
on
this
particular
point
they
were
absolutely
correct.

Still,
Musk
and
Republicans
have
been
throwing
a
noisy
hissy
fit
ever
since.
Carr
continues
it
in
the
pages
of
the
Journal,
falsely
claiming
the
FCC
engaged
in
“regulatory
warfare”
because
it
didn’t
give
a
billionaire
a
billion
dollars
for
slow,
expensive
broadband
access:

“As
I
noted
in
my
dissent
at
the
time,
the
FCC’s
revocation
couldn’t
be
explained
by
any
objective
application
of
the
facts,
the
law
or
sound
policy.
In
my
view,
it
amounted
to
nothing
more
than
regulatory
lawfare
against
one
of
the
left’s
top
targets:
Musk.
Rural
communities
stuck
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
digital
divide
are
paying
the
price.”

That
the
GOP
cares
about
the
“digital
divide”
is
a
fiction.
That
the
party
cares
about
funding
broadband
access
to
rural
communities
is
a
fiction.
That
the
party
cares
about
government
being
efficient
with
taxpayer
money
is
a
fiction.

Republicans
have
fought
against
improving
the
quality
and
affordability
of
broadband
access
for
the
better
part
of
thirty
years,
both
by
undermining
regional
competition,
and
by
dismantling
what’s
left
of
corporate
oversight
and
consumer
protection.
It
routinely
goes
out
of
its
way
to
protect
entrenched
monopolies
like
AT&T
and
Comcast
from
competition
and
accountability at
every
turn.

Carr’s
goal
is
to
paint
the
BEAD
infrastructure
bill
program
as
a
boondoggle,
knowing
full
well
money
from
the
popular
program
will
begin
to
flow
to
local
constituents after the
election
season.
As
with
all
government
programs
BEAD
certainly will
have
problems,
but
in
this
instance
the
NTIA
is actually
trying
to
do
things
right.
That
takes
time.

BEAD will have
a
transformative
impact
on
many
rural,
disconnected
markets.
I
know
this
because
part
of
my
work
involves talking
to
a
different
red
or
blue
municipality
every
single
week,
which
all
tell
me
they’re
poised
for
some
amazing
improvements.
And
Carr
certainly
doesn’t
want
locals
understanding
that
Republicans
have
tried
to
dismantle
a
popular
program that’s
actually
benefiting
them.

Should
Trump
win
the
White
House,
you
can
be
fairly
certain
Carr
will
be
the
next
agency
boss.
He’s
outlined
what
he’ll
do
in
his
Project
2025
chapter
on
how
the
FCC
should
be
run,
which
largely
involves
repurposing
the
agency
to harass,
tax,
and
nanny
tech
companies that
don’t
kiss
the
authoritarian
ring,
and
harass
media
companies
that
speak
critically
of
King
Trump.

You
can
be
absolutely
sure
Carr
will
redirect
as
much
BEAD
money
as
possible
to
Elon
Musk
and
monopolies
like
AT&T,
and
dismantle
the
most
useful
parts
of
BEAD
(like
the
efforts
to
fund
popular
community-owned
broadband
networks).
Carr
is
a
Trump
sycophant
of
the
highest
order,
and
if
he’s
put
in
charge
of
the
nation’s
biggest
telecom
and
media
regulator,
the
dysfunction
won’t
be
subtle.

Trump’s
Likely
FCC
Boss,
Brendan
Carr,
Tries
To
Undermine
Popular
Infrastructure
Bill
Broadband
Improvements

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

New
FTC
Rules
Make
It
Easier
To
Cancel
Services,
Punish
Companies
For
Being
Annoying
Little
Shits
About
It

Federal
Monitor
Expands
Consent
Decree
To
Cover
PD’s
Stop-And-Frisk
Shift
To
Traffic
Stops

Steam
Finally
Makes
It
Clear:
You’re
Buying
A
License,
Not
A
Game

*
The
rate
increases
will
continue
until
morale
improves.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Indian
foreign
intelligence
official
charged
with
attempting
to
assassinate
New
York
attorney.
See…
this
is
why
you
have
to
be
careful
about
rate
increases.
[Law360]

*
Just
when
you
thought
the
“bankruptcy
judge
living
with
an
attorney
practicing
before
him”
story
couldn’t
get
worse…
this
happens.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
It
turns
out
that,
no,
Ron
DeSantis
cannot
threaten
to
prosecute
TV
stations
for
airing
ads
encouraging
people
to
vote
against
his
preferred
ballot
measure.
[CNN]

*
Man
charged
in
the
Trump
golf
course
assassination
plot
asks
Aileen
Cannon
to
recuse
herself
on
the
grounds
that
Trump’s
incessant
praise
of
her
creates
the
appearance
of
impropriety.
Her
rulings
in
the
documents
case
remove
all
doubt
about
the
impropriety
but
he’s
showing
respectful
restraint.
[Politico]

*
Execution
based
on
debunked
science
halted
by
Texas
Supreme
Court
when
a
bipartisan
group
of
state
legislators
sought
to
block
the
killing
after
the
US
Supreme
Court
shrugged
on
Thursday.
[CBS]

*
Former
partner
suspended
for
telling
junior
to
lie
to
client.
[Roll
on
Friday]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
top
14
law
school’s
clinics
have
three
cases
in
front
of
the
Supreme
Court
this
Term?

Hint:
Three
different
statutes
are
at
issue
in
the
cases:
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964,
the
Employee
Retirement
Income
Security
Act,
and
the
Prison
Litigation
Reform
Act.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Pregnancy
can
come
with
some
pretty
big
surprises
—
one
of
them
being
getting
fired
before
you
could
take
maternity
leave.
Anisha
Mehta, 
is

suing
Biglaw
firm
DLA
Piper
for
firing
her
6
days
after
she
made
her
request.

Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:

DLA
Piper
LLP
says
a
former
senior
associate
was
fired
for
“a
series
of
increasingly
catastrophic
blunders”
and
her
lawsuit
should
be
dismissed
because
she
can’t
prove
her
pregnancy
bias,
leave
interference,
and
retaliation
claims.

The
intellectual
property
attorney
also
shouldn’t
get
a
trial
because
she
“regularly
turned
in
sloppy
work
product”
even
though
she
was
a
seventh-year
associate,
the
international
law
firm
said
Tuesday
in
seeking
summary
judgment
in
the
case.
The
two
Intellectual
Property
and
Trademark
Group
partners
with
whom
she
most
regularly
worked
quickly
grew
disappointed
with
her
abilities
and
concluded
that
she
wasn’t
capable
of
meeting
the
firm’s
expectations
for
an
associate
of
her
seniority
level,
DLA
Piper
said.

Quite
the
bombshell
to
drop
before
a
pregnancy
leave!
It
is
worth
recalling
that
DLA
Piper
has
a
history
of
making
baffling
employee
calls
when
it
comes
to
raising
children
—

they

did
slash
their
parental
leave
benefits
by
6
weeks
for
no
clear
reason
earlier
this
year.

After
Mehta
disclosed
her
pregnancy,
she
noted
that
the
partner
that
ultimately
fired
her
said
that
she
should
take
full
advantage
of
her
leave
before
transitioning
back
to
work.
That
seems
like
advice
to
ease
someone
in
their
recovery
and
return,
not
a
polite
way
to
direct
them
toward
LinkedIn.
A
couple
of
the
errors
the
firm
noted
were
typos
Mehta
made
in
internal
documents
like
using
the
wrong
company
name
or
country,
but
those
hardly
seem
to
be

that
catastrophic
considering
that
the
mistakes
were
caught
before
they
left
the
firm.

DLA
Piper
Says
Associate
Fired
Over
Performance,
Not
Pregnancy
[Bloomberg
Law]

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

In
a
move
extending
generative
AI’s
global
reach
in
the
legal
industry,
DISCO
announced
the
launch
of
its
Cecilia
AI
Platform
across
the
European
Union
and
the
UK.
Note
how
we
said,
“European
Union
and
the
UK”
as
opposed
to
just
“European
Union”
there?
The
UK
blew
up
its
whole
economy
just
so
we
have
to
append
its
name
separately!
Brilliant
trade-off.

Alas,
Cecilia
AI
promises
to
streamline
the
data-heavy
lift
of
modern
document
review
and
ediscovery,
aiming
to
turn
days
and
weeks
of
discovery
work
into
hours.

Getting
AI
into
the
hands
of
the
European
market
requires
navigating
Europe’s
complex
regulatory
environment.
The
EU’s
Artificial
Intelligence
Act
erected
a
framework
to
address
the
risks
and
ethical
concerns
posed
by
AI,
introducing
stringent
requirements
on
transparency,
accountability,
and
the
ability
to
explain
AI
decisions.
Satisfying
Europe’s
call
for
visibility
in
AI
decision
making
involves
a
little
extra
work
than
in
the
U.S.,
but
in
addition
to
the
products
launched
this
week,
DISCO
expects
to
have
more
generative
AI
tools
in
that
market
in
2025.

With
this
launch,
DISCO
introduces
Cecilia
Q&A
to
the
European
market.
This
AI
fact
expert
is
fully
integrated
within
a
user’s
DISCO
Ediscovery
database.
Lawyers
can
interrogate
their
document
sets
directly,
receiving
quick,
citation-backed
answers
that
highlight
key
documents
swimming
within
the
terabytes
of
data.
It’s
a
tool
designed
to
put
eyes
on
the
most
important
documents
quickly
and
efficiently.
Or,
if
the
attorney
wants,
there’s
a
single-document
version
of
Q&A
that
limits
the
interrogation
to
one
item.
All
of
which
is
done
without
sourcing
source
information
from
online,
with
answers
limited
to
the
information
within
a
customer’s
specific
database.

Basically
keeping
AI
from
hallucinating
by
cutting
off
access
to
the
internet
shrooms.

And
the
document
summary
function
creates
the
reader’s
digest
version
of
lengthy,
complex
or
important
documents
to
speed
up
the
all-too-familiar
process
of
slogging
through
a
long
document
only
to
realize
it’s
totally
irrelevant.

Which
gets
back
to
the
theme
I
took
away
from
my
ILTACON
meeting
with
DISCO
—

generative
AI’s
most
powerful
application
might
just
be
its
appeal
as
an
interface.
Legal
tech
has
had
the
power
to
deliver
a
lot
of
these
insights
for
a
while.
Providing
material
relevant
to
a
query
or
generating
a
‘Key
Word
In
Context’
style
summary
existed
before.
But
now,
AI’s
ability
to
offer
a
natural,
conversational
interface
—
delivering
coherent,
easily
reviewed
results
—
makes
a
difference.

But
something
about
generative
AI
products
have
proven
more
accessible
to
the
lawyerly
mind.
Personally,
I
think
it’s
the

iterative
nature
of
the
interface.
Prior
technology
could
only
answer
the
most
recent
query
and
left
it
to
the
user
to
figure
out
if
their
prompt
delivered
the
right
result.
Hunting
and
pecking
but
with
inquiries.
Generative
AI
learns
from
its
interactions
with
the
user
mimicking
the
back-and-forth
between
a
partner
and
associate
and
improving
the
results
incrementally.
This
dynamic
interface
feels
more
intuitive
to
lawyers,
who
are
used
to
a
process
of
refining
insights
through
dialogue.

And
occasionally
yelling.

Whatever
it
is,
studies
reveal
that
these
AI
tools
have
brought
many
senior
attorneys
to
technology
for
the
first
time
when
they
would
historically
farm
that
work
out
to
juniors
or
outside
providers.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
if
the
European
and
UK
contingent
follow
their
American
counterparts
in
embracing
this
tech.

Because
technology
is
only
useful
if
it
gets
used.

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

MAGA
lawyer
Cleta
Mitchell
is
back
at
it
—
trying
to
sow
seeds
of
doubt
about
the
2024
election,
even
before
the
results
are
in.
Sure,
her

dubious
legal
advice
surrounding
the
2020
election
got
her shitcanned
from
Biglaw
firm
Foley
&
Lardner’s
partnership
(and
the
fact
that
the
firm

claimed
to
have
no
knowledge
of
the
representation).
But
her
entire
gig
now
basically
revolves
around
disenfranchising
voters
—

as
reported
by
Shawn
Musgrave
at
the
Intercept.

Today,
Mitchell
is
a
senior
fellow
at
the
Conservative
Partnership
Institute
and
founder
of
the
Election
Integrity
Network.
In
recent
weeks,
she
has
helped
plant
lawsuits
that
seek
last-minute
changes
to
election
procedures
based
on
the
hypothetical
risk
of
election
fraud
from
overseas
voters.
Mitchell
did
not
respond
to
The
Intercept’s
questions,
including
about
the
status
of
a
disciplinary
complaint
filed
against
her
in
2022.

Of
course,
those
lawsuits
are
in
swing
states.

The
current

con
cases
involve
casting
doubt
on
the
votes
of
U.S.
citizens
abroad.
Mitchell
has
described
her
“theory”
in
public
statements.

“They’re
literally
getting
people
to
lie,”
Mitchell
said,
“and
to
say
that
they’re
overseas
or
to
say
that
they’re
citizens,
and
the
states
are
not
checking
at
all.
And
so
I’ve
helped
to
organize
suits
in
two
states:
one
in
Pennsylvania,
one
in
North
Carolina.”

Mitchell’s
comments
follow
recent
claims
from
Trump
that
Democrats’
get-out-the-vote
efforts
among
overseas
citizens
was
actually
cover
for
fraud.
Two
lawsuits
match
the
timing
of
Mitchell’s
interview
and
her
description:
one
filed
in
federal
court
in
Pennsylvania
on
behalf
of
six
Republican
members
of
Congress,
and
the
other
in
state
court
in
North
Carolina
on
behalf
of
the
Republican
National
Committee
and
the
state
GOP.

The
RNC
filed
a
similar
third
suit
last
week
in
Michigan,
after
Mitchell’s
interview.
And
Mitchell
said
she
hoped
to
see
similar
litigation
over
overseas
ballots
filed
soon
in
Wisconsin
and
Georgia.

The
RNC
has
denied
Mitchell
worked
on
their
lawsuits.

Officials
have
strongly
denied
there’s
any
fraud,
except
that
which
lives
in
MAGA
attorneys’
heads.

“This
is
not
a
legitimate
legal
concern,”
Angela
Benander,
spokesperson
for
the
Michigan
Department
of
State,
told
The
Intercept.
“Just
the
latest
in
the
RNC’s
PR
campaign
to
spread
unfounded
distrust
in
the
integrity
of
our
elections.”
On
Monday,
the
agency
asked
for
sanctions
against
the
RNC’s
attorneys
for
filing
a
last-minute
lawsuit
“devoid
of
legal
merit”
over
long-standing
overseas
ballot
procedures.

But
even
without
evidence
of
voter
fraud,
the
litigation
itself
fuels
the
problem.

“One
of
the
lessons
from
2020
was
that
the
impact
of
bringing
all
these
lawsuits
in
terms
of
public
trust
in
the
election
was
significant,”
said
legal
ethics
professor
Scott
Cummings,
who
has
written
about
the
MAGA
legal
braintrust’s
efforts
to
keep
Trump
in
power.
“Most
of
the
lawsuits
then
were
not
designed
to
win
on
the
merits,
but
to
confuse
the
public.
These
cases
are
of
a
same
piece.”

“It
seems
like
there’s
a
political
calculation,”
Cummings
said.
“These
lawyers
unfortunately
believe
it’s
worth
it.”

Makes
you
wonder
about
the
status
of
that

disciplinary
complaint
against
Mitchell.

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

In
the
latest
episode
of
our
video
series

How
It
Works,
we
bring
you
a
demonstration
of

Briefpoint,
a
solution
that
uses
artificial
intelligence
to
draft
discovery
responses
and
discovery
requests
in
litigation.

With
Briefpoint,
a
lawyer
simply
uploads
a
PDF
document
and
it
generates
the
appropriate
discovery
requests
or
response.
It
can
generate
responses
to
requests
for
admission,
requests
for
production,
or
interrogatories.

In
addition
to
creating
discovery
responses,
Briefpoint’s
newest
feature
can
create
initial
discovery
requests
based
on
the
pleadings.
The
lawyer
simply
uploads
a
complaint
or
answer,
and
it
automatically
generates
a
request
for
production,
a
request
for
admissions,
and
a
set
of
special
interrogatories.

Joining
me
today
to
tell
us
all
about
Briefpoint
and
show
us
how
it
works
is

Nathan
Walter,
the
company’s
CEO
and
cofounder.
The
topics
he
covers
are:

• About
  Briefpoint.
• Response
  Documents:
  Upload
  discovery
  request
  in
  PDF
  and
  download
  discovery
  response
  in
  a
  Word
  document.
• Response
  Collection:
  Briefpoint
  converts
  requests
  into
  plain
  English
  and
  collects
  responses
  from
  your
  clients.
• Document
  Formatting:
  Automatic
  document
  formatting
  pursuant
  to
  each
  case’s
  jurisdiction’s
  local
  formatting
  rules
  and
  customs
  (all
  50
  states
  +
  DC).
• Propounding
  Discovery:
  Upload
  a
  pleading
  PDF,
  download
  complete
  sets
  of
  interrogatories,
  requests
  for
  production,
  and
  fequests
  for
  admission.

Watch
the
video
below.

About
How
It
Works

How
It
Works is
a
sponsored
video
series
that
lets
you
see
how
legal
technology
products
work.
Each
episode
features
a
hands-on
demonstration,
presented
by
the
product’s
developer
and
moderated
by
me.

See other
episodes
here
or

on
YouTube,
or
read

this
introduction.

To
feature
your
product
in How
It
Works, contact
us
here.

Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
are
trying
something
new
in
the
election
interference
case,
and
that
thing
is
civility.
Since
August
of
2023,
attorneys
John
Lauro
and
Todd
Blanche
have
larded
their
pleadings
with
invective,
calling
the
special
counsel
a
puppet
of
the
Biden
administration
who
timed
his
filings
to
protect
his
“boss’s”
flagging
electoral
prospects
and
characterizing
the
judge’s
own
orders
as
lawless.

In
their

very
last
filing
in
this
case,
Lauro
and
Blanche
accused
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
of
presenting
“so-called
‘evidence’”
which
he
had
“unlawfully
cherry-picked
and
mischaracterized,”
in
an
act
of
“overt
and
inappropriate
election
interference.”
This
act
was
a
brief
defending
its
superseding
indictment
in
light
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
presidential
immunity
decision
in
July.
Trump
characterized
the
filing
as
“improper,”
despite
the
fact
that
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
herself
ordered
the
prosecutor
to
file
it.

The
special
counsel
filed
an
appendix
to
that
brief
under
seal,
and
Judge
Chutkan
invited
the
defendant
to
comment
on
the
proposed
redactions.
He

did
not
comment
on
the
proposed
redactions,
which
he
had
referred
to
as
“impotent”
in
a
prior
filing.
Instead
he
asked
the
court
to
“stay
that
determination
for
a
reasonable
period
of
time
so
that
President
Trump
can
evaluate
litigation
options
relating
to
the
decision.”
Noting
that
“[a]s
in
his
previous
filing,
he
identifies
no
specific
substantive
objections
to
particular
proposed
redactions,”
the
court
nonetheless

granted
Trump
seven
additional
days
before
publishing
the
redacted
filing
on
the
public
docket.

Presumably
the
court
thought
Trump
would
race
to
the
Circuit
Court
or
perhaps
the
Supreme
Court
in
advance
of
the
deadline
expiring
today
seeking
mandamus
or
at
least
an
administrative
stay.
But
he
didn’t
do
that
either.
Instead
he
filed
yet
another

motion
asking
for
the

exact
same
relief,
but
this
time
with
about
75
percent
less
incendiary
rhetoric.
After
trying
literally
everything
else,
Trump
is
trying
to
act
normal
for
the
first
time
in
this
case.

Well,
normalish.
What
he’s
asking
for
is
still
batshit
and
stupid.
But
at
least
he’s
being
polite
…
graded
on
a
curve.

He
asks
Judge
Chutkan
to
stay
release
of
the
appendix
until
his
own
response
is
released
on
November
14.
That
document
is
due
on
the
7th,
and
will
remain
under
seal
for
a
week
to
allow
the
parties
to
argue
about
redactions,
and
Trump
suggests
that
potential
jurors
will
be
less
poisoned
by
seeing
the
two
filings
together.

“[I]f
the
Court
immediately
releases
the
Special
Counsel’s
cherry-picked
documents,
potential
jurors
will
be
left
with
a
skewed,
one-sided,
and
inaccurate
picture
of
this
case.
Those
same
potential
jurors
may
not
see
President
Trump’s
later
responsive
filing,
and
even
if
some
do,
first
impressions
are
prone
to
remain,”
he
argues.
“That
is
especially
so
as
this
Court’s
gag
order
unconstitutionally
restricts
President
Trump’s
ability
to
utilize
First
Amendment-protected
political
speech
to
publicly
comment
on
these
proceedings,
including
the
SA
Appendix.”
(Okay,
that’s
a
bit
inappropriate.
Old
habits
die
hard!)

This
is
transparent
bullshit,
of
course.
Obviously
he
just
wants
to
keep
this
document
out
of
the
public
before
the
election.
And
once
again
he
approvingly
quotes

Elie
Honig
and

Jack
Goldsmith
to
buttress
his
point,
even
though
their
arguments
are
based
solely
on
proximity
to
the
election,
not
poisoning
the
jury
pool.
The
court
has
already

rejected
the
“Defendant’s
concern
with
the
political
consequences
of
these
proceedings”
and
warned
him
that
“Future
filings
should
be
directed
to
the
issues
before
the
court.”

Trump’s
lawyers
seem
to
think
that
perhaps
they
will
get
a
different
result
if
they
dial
back
the
invective
a
scosh
and
repeat
their
argument
in
a
slightly
different
way.

Although
the
Court
has
decided,
over
President
Trump’s
objections,
that
the
“‘political
consequences
of
these
proceedings’
is
not
a
cognizable
legal
prejudice,”
the
Court
has
not
addressed
the
public’s
interest
in
ensuring
that
this
case
does
not
unduly
interfere,
or
appear
to
interfere,
with
the
ongoing
election.
A
temporary
stay
would
serve
that
interest
by
ensuring
that
the
redacted
SA
Appendix
is
accompanied
by
President
Trump’s
rebuttal,
reducing
(but
again
not
eliminating)
this
case’s
improper
impact
on
the
election,
as
well
as
the
potential
for
voter
confusion.
Additionally,
a
stay
would
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
these
proceedings
and
a
court’s
duty
to
remain
apolitical.

That
is
one
“litigation
option,”
but
it’s
unlikely
to
be
an
effective
one.
Perhaps
if
Trump
had
filed
this
on
Monday
and
gotten
an
immediate
denial,
he’d
have
had
to
time
for
a
Hail
Mary
pass
to
SCOTUS.
As
it
stands,
the
stay
expires
today
and
Judge
Chutkan
is
almost
certain
to
deny
the
request
and
order
the
immediate
unsealing
of
the
appendix
in
the
same
order.

The
filing
notes
that
“Counsel
for
President
Trump
requested
a
position
from
the
Special
Counsel
by
email
on
October
16,
2024,
and
again
on
October
17,
2024.
As
of
the
time
of
this
filing,
the
Special
Counsel
has
not
responded.”
Presumably
because
Jack
Smith
and
his
team
were
laughing
so
hard
they
couldn’t
type
anything
out
before
this
hit
the
docket
this
morning
at
9am.

US
v.
Trump [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

In
today’s
rapidly
evolving
legal
landscape,
especially
in
the
niche
but
growing
field
of
cryptocurrency
law,
having
the
right
mindset
and
strategy
can
make
all
the
difference.
Justin
Wales,
head
of
legal
for
the
Americas
at
Crypto.com,
brings
a
unique
perspective
to
this
space.
With
years
of
experience
both
at
a
law
firm
and
in-house,
Justin
shares
some
invaluable
lessons
on
how
to
thrive
as
a
lawyer
in
the
crypto
world.

Here
are
some
of
the
key
takeaways
from
our
recent
discussion:

1.
Embrace
Flexibility
And
Take
Risks
Early

One
of
Justin’s
most
striking
pieces
of
advice
is
about
the
importance
of
flexibility
in
your
career.
He
emphasizes
that
being
willing
to
take
risks
and
pivot
when
necessary
is
crucial,
especially
in
an
area
like
crypto,
where
the
regulatory
landscape
and
market
conditions
are
constantly
changing.
Early
in
his
career,
Justin
made
deliberate
choices
that
didn’t
always
align
with
the
conventional
path.
He
chose
to
prioritize
learning
and
experience
over
simply
hitting
billable
hours
at
his
firm.
This
unconventional
approach
allowed
him
to
build
a
broad
skill
set
across
various
areas
of
law,
including
securities,
commodities,
and
regulatory
work
—
all
of
which
are
highly
relevant
to
crypto.

For
legal
professionals
considering
a
career
in
crypto,
Justin’s
advice
is
clear:
don’t
be
afraid
to
step
outside
your
comfort
zone.
If
you’re
stuck
in
a
niche
that
doesn’t
excite
you,
it’s
worth
taking
a
calculated
risk
to
explore
other
areas.
You
don’t
need
to
be
locked
into
one
specialization
for
the
next
30
years.
The
field
of
crypto
law
rewards
those
who
are
adaptable
and
willing
to
learn.

2.
Become
A
Lifelong
Learner
And
Engage
With
The
Community

Justin
underscores
the
importance
of
continuous
learning
and
engagement
with
the
community
as
a
vital
strategy
for
success
in
the
crypto
legal
field.
Crypto
law
isn’t
static;
it’s
an
interdisciplinary
area
that
spans
multiple
legal
and
regulatory
frameworks.
Whether
it’s
understanding
the
nuances
of
state
regulations,
securities
law,
or
the
latest
developments
in
decentralized
finance
(DeFi),
staying
updated
is
non-negotiable.

But
learning
doesn’t
happen
in
a
vacuum.
Justin
advises
aspiring
crypto
lawyers
to
actively
participate
in
the
community.
This
could
mean
attending
industry
conferences
like
Consensus,
joining
online
forums,
or
simply
reaching
out
to
other
professionals
in
the
space
for
coffee
chats.
The
crypto
community
is
remarkably
open
and
collaborative,
making
it
a
fertile
ground
for
networking
and
mentorship.
Engaging
with
others
not
only
expands
your
knowledge
base
but
also
enhances
your
reputation
in
the
field.
You
don’t
need
a
long
list
of
credentials
to
make
a
mark;
genuine
curiosity
and
the
willingness
to
learn
can
set
you
apart.

3.
Self-Publishing
As
A
Strategic
Move

In
an
unusual
yet
brilliant
move,
Justin
chose
to
self-publish
his
book,
“The
Crypto
Legal
Handbook.”
This
decision
wasn’t
just
about
maintaining
control
over
content;
it
was
about
making
the
book
accessible
and
updatable
—
a
crucial
consideration
in
a
field
that
evolves
as
quickly
as
crypto.
Traditional
publishing
routes
can
be
slow
and
expensive,
with
textbooks
often
costing
hundreds
of
dollars
and
becoming
outdated
almost
as
soon
as
they
hit
the
shelves.
By
self-publishing,
Justin
ensures
that
his
book
remains
a
living
document,
reflecting
the
latest
changes
in
the
industry.

For
those
in
legal
education
or
just
starting
out
in
their
crypto
careers,
this
approach
offers
a
valuable
lesson:
there
are
always
alternative
ways
to
share
knowledge
and
build
a
reputation.
You
don’t
have
to
wait
for
a
traditional
publisher
to
validate
your
expertise.
In
the
age
of
digital
media,
self-publishing
can
be
a
powerful
tool
for
both
personal
branding
and
community
service.

Final
Thoughts:
Control
Your
Career
Narrative

Justin’s
insights
boil
down
to
one
powerful
message:
be
proactive
in
shaping
your
career.
Whether
it’s
taking
risks,
building
a
broad
skill
set,
engaging
deeply
with
your
community,
or
finding
innovative
ways
to
share
knowledge,
there
are
countless
ways
to
differentiate
yourself
in
the
fast-paced
world
of
crypto
law.

If
you’re
ready
to
dive
deeper
into
this
fascinating
field,
don’t
miss
my
full
conversation
with
Justin
Wales
on
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self.”
You’ll
gain
even
more
insights
into
how
to
navigate
the
challenges
and
opportunities
in
the
world
of
crypto,
from
someone
who’s
been
on
the
front
lines
since
the
early
days.
Tune
in
to
hear
more
about
the
future
of
law
in
the
age
of
digital
currencies
and
how
you
can
be
at
the
forefront
of
this
exciting
journey.

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.